Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by cigaretteman, Apr 10, 2009.
Oh, but free-range, all-natural and organic is just automatically safer without any science to back it up. It doesn't need science, it just HAS to be safer. People need to get a grip and quit wasting their money on these niche market foods. You CAN'T tell the difference!
Just knew the true agenda of the columnist would come out at the end. :sad: And trichinosis is rather easy to avoid - just cook to internal temp of 170.
But hey, nice spring day today - may have to get the grill going and have a couple nice thick pork chops this weekend!
BTW, when's the last time you had some INorganic food?
Gullible people and con-men are what the "natural/organic" food thing is all about.
And nearly all food that is actually edible by humans is GMO. GMO has co-existed with and enabled the rise of civilization. But if you feel the need to be a hunter-gatherer and die of old age at 35, feel free. More power to you.
Nothing like a fat, thick, juicy Iowa chop, slow-cooked in my Weber grill.
I like to set a sprinkler so it drizzles just a bit onto the Weber, slowing down combustion so it takes about 90 minutes to cook. That and a little seasoned salt just to put a bite to it and mmmmm good pork!
Free range pork would SUCK. You want good meat, you feed the animal corn. Corn and corn by products is what gives you the marbling and fat that gives meat the awesome taste it has. Free range pork would be tough and you would need a hack saw instead of a steak knife.
I was just thinking this later, couldn't you avoid trichinosis by just cooking the meat long enough? I think sometimes organic products do taste better, but not always. Free range works better in a lot of cases and I know I can taste a difference.
It is a dilemma in how we use our technology to help get the best product possible. I'm no "environmentalist" by any means, but sometimes the better product is made by the smaller, more natural guy.
Sometimes, yes, you're right.
But there've been some pretty interesting studies done that demonstrate that the opposite is true. The labelling often influences consumer taste as much as actual food quality.
Actually, handling has more effect on consumer satisfaction imo. Mass produced tomatoes picked green and then clobbered for a bazillion miles cannot compete with vine-picked tomatoes that are eaten warm from the sun.
But I doubt if you'd want to eat a truly "natural" tomato. They've been genetically altered by man to be worth eating. The genetic alteration through hybrids and cross-breeding has made grain crops yield enough to be economically worthwhile, and caused man to transition from hunter-gatherer to civilization.
Yeah, I think like you said earlier, even the "natural" food we eat is not truly natural, and a lot of times you introduce disease and rot by not using the technology we have obtained to help our food supply. I am not an apologist for all organic products, but I think there are benefits in many cases. In meat production, I would almost always buy free range animals. Notice I don't necessarily mean organic, but I think meat tastes better when an animal can actually move around.
You also make a very good point about cross-breeding. The plants we eat now are different than what someone would have found a couple thousand years ago. That is just part of agriculture . I think labeling and handling as you mention are key parts of food production, and many producers are trying to benefit from the "natural" label while serving crap to the consumer.
I feel weird arguing for the "natural" side of things in a forum like this. I am totally opposed to groups like PETA and nuts that take things too far on the "environmentalist" wing (unfortunately they have co-opted that word). I do however wish to avoid unnecessary chemicals when I can.
Yeah, me too. I'm a big fan of the truck farm, primarily for socio-economic reasons. There are some farmers who have ditched their large, commodity crop farms and converted to farming intensively just veggies and value-added livestock and selling locally, and making a good living at it.
I don't think it's a black/white issue, but I think we agree that PETA is misguided.
I've yet to see any study that suggests organic food is any better for you?
Could it taste better? Sure. I've had chickens raised the old way in the yard, and I think they taste better(some of the store bought stuff has more of a fishy taste to me).
Organic vs non organic? I buy non-organic most of the time because it's cheaper and tastes just fine to me. I have no problem however having my own garden or going to a farmers market.
You know, I've seen some studies, albeit from sources that have an interest in the outcome, that demonstrate that various veggies are much more nutritious in so-called "organic" form.
Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that the controls are solid, and I have a problem with their scaling of results. In other words, are the veggies they comparing apples to apples (literally) and do the difference in nutritional value make a nutritionally significant difference.
What good is an organic vegetable with XXX% better Vitamin whatever content than the commercial one, as long as the commercial one has sufficient nutritional content?
I am conducting my own nutritional anecdotal study for the last 3 years, focussing on fitness and eating almost exclusively commercial veggies. So far, at 45, I'm in terrific shape. I can tell the difference in days when I eat enough veggies, throughout the day, but I can see no signs that I'm deficient in any nutrition.
And I'm too cheap to pay the extra for so called "natural" foods.
My dog produces plenty of "100% organic" piles. Anyone want to buy them?
Did anyone else check out the author of this article? James E. McWilliams, a history professor at Texas State University at San Marcos, is the author of the forthcoming â€œJust Food: How Locavores Are Endangering the Future of Food and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly.â€ :no::no::no: No wonder the article is in the "Opinion" section. It would seem that Dr. McWilliams opinions concerning the future of food might be almost as valid as my theories on religion in India in the 22nd century or of Barbara Streisand's views of apple production.
We have more than a few experts on the subject of food production, food safety, and nutrition all within the city limits of Ames. Could someone please tell me why a nut from San Marcos, Texas that can only get published in the New York Times is worthy of discussion?
That reminds me of this disgusting person on my block that was actually encouraging dogs to take a dump by the trees to encourage plant growth in the shade. I really don't need extra dog piles left on the street here.